to repeal an act of Congress which affects the District of Columbia, and then the Congress could, the next day, repeal the act of the Council in repealing its act. Mr. CUTLER. Yes; I remember that statement. Mr. ABERNETHY. And the next day the Council could repeal the act of the Congress in repealing the act of the Council in repealing the act of the Congress. It is kind of hard to follow but that is what would happen. Mr. CUTLER. I remember reading Mr. Colladay's statement on that. Mr. ABERNETHY. What do you, as an attorney and one who has read about this and who will be governed by such a law, think about it? Mr. CUTLER. I think that is an imaginary horror which Mr. Colladay brought up. It is analogous to a situation in the Army in which the company commander issues orders to his company and a general is competent to tell the company what to do, through the captain. Mr. ABERNETHY. I beg your pardon. This is not imaginary. This is a real possibility that exists. It actually exists. Mr. CUTLER. The first time it happened, you could correct it when you changed what the District Council does. You can say that this may not further be changed by the District Council and that is the end of it right there. Mr. ABERNETHY. Suppose the President vetoed the act? Mr. CUTLER. You have your constitutional right to override it. I do not think the problem ever comes up in the Territories. You have exactly the same problem in the Territories that the Territorial legislature can do something which the Congress doesn't like and the Congress can override it. It is perfectly true and can be vetoed. Mr. ABERNETHY. But that completely defeats the principle now in the Constitution and I am sure you are a strong constitutionalist. Mr. CUTLER. The identical thing could happen today because the District Commissioners have ordinance-making powers and if they made an ordinance which the Congress didn't like, the Congress could override the ordinance and the President could veto it. Mr. ABERNETHY. Do you think we ought to do anything about that? Mr. CUTLER. I do not think it is a real problem. I cannot conceive of a District Council overriding the will of Congress to that extent and whenever they did that you have the power to take care of that at your next meeting. Mr. ABERNETHY. If the Council regarded the Congress as just visitors, perhaps they might decide to do it. Mr. CUTLER. Perhaps I should not have used the term guest or visitor but I meant it in the same term as you do when you go to Jackson. Mr. HARRIS. What is the address of your organization? Mr. CUTLER. We meet at the homes of individual members. You referred to home rule headquarters. That is a composite office made up of a great many committees interested in home rule. I believe their address is 3240 P Street. Mr. HARRIS. Who is the president of the Home Rule Committee? Mr. CUTLER. No; we are an informal committee that has met in the homes of our members for the past 4 years. We consist of approximately 200 in our membership. Mr. HARRIS. Who keeps the list of membership? Mr. CUTLER. We have a treasurer, Mr. John H. Pickering, who exists for the purpose of collecting money and filing registrational statements under the Lobbying Act. Mr. HARRIS. How often do you have meetings? Mr. CUTLER. Irregularly, but on the average of once a month. Mr. HARRIS. Who calls them together? Mr. CUTLER. The meetings are called together by whatever group within the organization feels there should be a meeting. If you would like to have the names of the people who do call them together, I would be glad to supply them. Mr. HARRIS. You might supply that for the record. At one of their meetings did they take united action in sending you here to testify on behalf of the united membership? Mr. CUTLER. Yes, sir. Mr. HARRIS. What has your committee done toward bringing about an amendment to the Constitution to either change the provision which says that matters of legislation are exclusive to the Congress or the right to vote for the President and Vice President who is the real chief executive of the District of Columbia? Mr. CUTLER. We have discussed this question many times. We have felt as a committee that we should concentrate for the moment on what Congress can do by legislation as distinguished from what would have to be done by a constitutional amendment. We fully support the principal of national representation as outlined to you yesterday by Mr. Colladay. Mr. HARRIS. But what have you done toward approaching it as it ought to be approached, instead of trying to bear some methodical method by which you think the Supreme Court would uphold it as constitutional? Mr. CUTLER. Uphold what? Mr. HARRIS. The action of the District Council of the so-called home-rule establishment. Mr. CUTLER. Are you suggesting that the only thing that could be done is by having a constitutional amendment? Mr. HARRIS. I am suggesting that the Constitution provides that in connection with the powers of Congress one of the powers is to have exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the District of Columbia. Mr. CUTLER. Yes. That phrase, as I am sure other witnesses have mentioned, has been construed as meaning exclusive of the States. That is the only way to construe the Constitution with Mr. Madison's statement in the Federal papers, that a municipal legislature would be allowed. Mr. HARRIS. Until that was referred to a few days ago I never heard any construction placed upon it. That was one thought that somebody overlooked during these several years. Mr. CUTLER. This same point was submitted to this committee in 1948. Mr. HARRIS. How could you construe that to be applied to the States and not to the District of Columbia when they were taking the District of Columbia completely without the States? Mr. CUTLER. Mr. Justice Brewer, in the case of Binns v. United States (194 U. S. 486 (1904)), said something to the same effect in saying that Congress may entrust to a subordinate body a large volume of legislative power. Mr. HARRIS. Was that on a District case? Mr. CUTLER. No, I don't believe it was. This is a dictum of Mr. Justice Brewer in which he talks about the power of Congress. Mr. HARRIS. What case was involved? Mr. CUTLER. It has been several years since I read the case. Mr. HARRIS. You are referring to an authority and I think you should know to what area it relates. Mr. CUTLER. I would be glad to supply that. Mr. HARRIS. You don't know? Mr. CUTLER. Not at this moment. Mr. HARRIS. Isn't that in connection with some territorial problem? Mr. CUTLER. In a case dealing with the territorial problems. Mr. HARRIS. Don't you know that it doesn't provide for exclusive jurisdiction in territorial governments? Mr. CUTLER. As you read the word "exclusive" and if you read it as meaning exclusive of the States, that is entirely inconsistent. Mr. HARRIS. I am particularly concerned about the growing feeling around here, particularly in view of the action of the other body, and a motion it had before it with reference to receding the District of Columbia to the State of Maryland. It appears to me that the great contention that is being made among certain groups of people who are pressing this matter is to the point that I think it is of serious concern and very likely something like that could happen. I am not sure I would be for it. Mr. CUTLER. I agree myself that there is a better solution. Mr. HARRIS. I think there is a contention here that you must organize, notwithstanding the fact that there is so much contention for so-called home rule in the District of Columbia in which you only want to elect a council, which you said this morning would be composed of somebody to make laws or to legislate for the District of Columbia and I cannot understand that viewpoint, limiting it right to that one thing and evidently there must be something else behind it. There is a growing feeling that perhaps it would be the best thing to recede it to the State of Maryland, and organizers and committees of the District of Columbia presently are thinking that over rather seriously because I think the feeling is growing. Mr. ABERNETHY. Offhand, I think it would be a reasonable thing to consider. It gives them statehood and countyhood and cityhood. You get all the hoods in one sack. Mr. ALLEN. I think that the people of California, as the people m every other State, are entitled to have some place to which their Members of Congress can come in an area which is subject to no domination except that of the States themselves as a group and to which the people of my State can come and have access to it without domination from a local group who might be thinking differently and who might have thoughts different from the people of my State. Mr. HARRIS. You wouldn't deny that there is a feeling growing for recession. Thank you very much. We appreciate your statement. We will next hear from Mr. Rufus Lusk. STATEMENT OF RUFUS S. LUSK, PRESIDENT, WASHINGTON TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION Mr. LUSK. My name is Rufus S. Lusk, president of the Washington Taxpayers Association, 1830 Jefferson Place NW. Before I proceed I think I would like to answer the question that was asked the gentleman preceding me about this likelihood or the possibility of the Congress passing a law and the Council vetoing it and so forth. Mr. HARRIS. I am glad to hear you say that because we announced these hearings at which time we were hopeful that we wouldn't get off into the various principles of the home rule and so forth, but get on the legislation. We have thrashed out the idea of the principle and the desire in the history over and over and over again and it has been the committee's hope that we could remain within the problem that is before us; that is, the particular type of legislation as compared with consideration of other legislation passed. I am not saying that to cut you off, but I do believe we should stay away from so many generalities and I will say that for the benefit of all witnesses. Mr. LUSK. The witness stated that we had that situation now in that the Commissioners might pass an ordinance and the Congress saying it couldn't be done and the Commissioners repass it and the situation would be the same. It is not the same at all. The Commissioners are appointed by the President and they don't do anything; at least, I have never observed them doing anything when they know the President doesn't want it. These councilmen would be elected and not responsible to the President and of course to the people and, therefore, as the lawyers say, the comparison is not on all fours at all. While you said you wanted the discussion of the bill, can't we go to the principle of the home rule regardless of what this bill is? Mr. HARRIS. It will be perfectly all right to express your own views. We have had your views before. Mr. LUSK. Yes, but they are going to be better this time. Mr. HARRIS. I know they are good. You always present your own viewpoint very well, but we have tried to not rehash this over and over again in order that we may expedite these hearings. Mr. LUSK. I won't be long but I think something new has come up. Mr. HARRIS. We would be glad to have that. Mr. LUSK. You force it out of the proponents of home rule. It is like the farmer with a mule. He was in a dilemma. He wanted a mule strong enough to plow but not so strong that he could kick. The proponents of the home rule want a rule strong enough to provide a government such as that in the city of New York or Philadelphia and at the same time every one of them admit that the paramount power shall be in Congress. I haven't looked up what the definition. of the word "paramount" is but I think it means the very top. Now, you cannot have both. You cannot have a city government which is completely autonomous as much as as any city government of a State in which it is located and at the same time you gentlemen can undo anything that city government does, or do something that it doesn't even think of doing. I wish they would be precise and exact in just what they propose in their ideas because their ideas are nebulous, hard to understand, dreamy. They are not right on the ground. If you gentlemen can't get it out of them certainly the rest of us-and, by the way, there are hundreds of thousands of us although they are not very articulate— who do not want home rule, don't know what they want either, because they obviously don't know themselves. Now, my position is this and I shall make this brief because I think one of the burdens of a Congressman is sitting up there and listening to witnesses all day long, and that is that I am diametrically opposed to any kind of an elected city council. I have been opposed to it ever since I was a little child. My father was opposed to it. He came here in about 1851. Mr. ABERNETHY. Are you a native? Mr. LUSK. Yes, sir; I was born here in the last century. The latter part of it, of course. Mr. ABERNETHY. You are one of the very few natives who has testified. Mr. LUSK. Well, I am sort of a museum piece. As I say, I was born on Eleventh Street right above Woodward & Lothrop. It is now a liquor store. I am not only a native but my family has lived here since 1732. Most of us who have lived here and have our businesses here do not want home rule. It seems to me that the proponents of this legislation, and they have been working hard, when they propose a change in our form of government, they would present some arguments as to why they would have a better form of government. There is no New Deal or Fair Deal way of sweeping a street. A municipal government is a housekeeping affair. We are fortunate, in my judgment, that the investigation being conducted by the Senate is not being conducted by a city council but by an independent group of Senators who are trying to get the truth. I think I know something about this Government of ours. I have been intimately associated with it for 25 years and practically every city official is well known to me. We issue many publications which the District government uses and we do that in conjunction with our Government. We have one of the finest city governments in the United States, of any large city. I do not say that because I have read about it or because somebody has told me but because I have visited many times the city hall and the police department and the fire department in such places as Philadelphia, New York, Boston, Chicago, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Los Angeles, Portland, Seattle, and even Canadian cities. While there are officials sometimes who a little stupid, generally speaking or almost invariably speaking, they are honest. Our streets are clean. They are well lighted. We have a good fire department. Our assessments are absolutely honest. I have never heard of a case in which there was a palpable display of dishonesty or inability on the part of the assessors, and that is difficult in most cities, one of the difficulties which most other ciites have and you can see it by walking down the street and looking at the different places and the manner in which they have been assessed. |